Abstract
Risk-sensitive foraging models predict that choice between fixed and variable food delays should be influenced by an organism's energy budget. To investigate whether the predictions of these models could be extended to choice in humans, risk sensitivity in 4 adults was investigated under laboratory conditions designed to model positive and negative energy budgets. Subjects chose between fixed and variable trial durations with the same mean value. An energy requirement was modeled by requiring that five trials be completed within a limited time period for points delivered at the end of the period (block of trials) to be exchanged later for money. Manipulating the duration of this time period generated positive and negative earnings budgets (or, alternatively, "time budgets"). Choices were consistent with the predictions of energy-budget models: The fixed-delay option was strongly preferred under positive earnings-budget conditions and the variable-delay option was strongly preferred under negative earnings-budget conditions. Within-block (or trial-by-trial) choices were also frequently consistent with the predictions of a dynamic optimization model, indicating that choice was simultaneously sensitive to the temporal requirements, delays associated with fixed and variable choices on the upcoming trial, cumulative delays within the block of trials, and trial position within a block.